It felt like a lion being savaged by Christians
– Madsen Pirie, when asked how it felt to be the only one in a room offering strongly dissenting opinions from the usual statist consensus.
|
|||||
|
Sometimes I read articles which seem to prove the existence of parallel universes. What I am curious about however is how does my web browser manage to access them from within this universe? I really must drop David Deutsch an e-mail and ask him to theorise. For example, see this article sent from some alternate Earth, called ‘Britain counts cost of diplomatic furore over Berezovsky‘ (I apologise if the transdimensional shift causes your browser to crash):
So by this I can only assume that some people think that if only Britain was ‘nicer’ to the Russian regime, there was at some point a ‘hope’ that the Russian leadership might allow the UK to extradite the people who could confirm the already obvious fact that the Russian state ordered Russian agents to assassinate Alexander Litvinenko in London. Yes, I am sure the Russian authorities are really keen to do that. Not in this universe, of course, but I am sure that must be true in some other universe otherwise how else would it end up in a newspaper article? I am fairly sure it is too late for an April Fool and I cannot detect humour at work in the writing so no doubt journalists Patrick Wintour and Laura Smith, the ones in this universe that is, are rather bemused by this transdimensional strangeness from their alter-egos from the universe in which politeness and pliability by Her Majesty’s Government can be expected to get Russian leaders to implicate themselves in murders on British soil. April 14th, 2007 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
 I have a confession to make. I love the French TGV train that recently set an speed record of more than 350mph – that is quicker than some of the fighter aircraft of World War 2. It is a brilliant, sleek example of engineering and no wonder the French are proud of it. French civil engineering is in fact world-class, a fact that Frog-bashers would do well to remember. The French also played a part in that other magnificently quick and elegant beast – Concorde. I read an interesting article on the TGV business in the UK weekly, The Spectator, last week, by Neil Collins (subscription-only). In this week’s Speccie, old-style socialist Neil Clark (defender of Milosovic, to his eternal shame) pops up in the letter’s page of the print edition to poke fun at privatised railways, arguing that the TGV example proves how splendid nationalisation is. It is a superficially appealing argument, but wrong on a number of grounds. First of all, the TGV train has most of its fixed costs paid for by the state, ie, the French taxpayer. Taxes in France are high, some of the highest in the western world. It is all very well for Collins or Clark to wax lyrical about the ability of Monsieur and Madame to travel from Paris to Marseilles for under 20 euros, but that rather ignores the heavy tax bill that the benighted citoyens of France pay to keep this ultra-quick train system operating. When anyone talks about the ‘profits’ that the TGV might make, it is an abuse of economic language, since the initial investment into the railway was not an ‘investment’ in the sense that anyone spending their own money of their free will would understand it. And France, a less densely populated nation that Britain with a rather less respectful attitude towards property rights, can more easily punch straight railway lines across the land regardless of the objections of anyone who stands in the way. These are costs that lie on the debit side of the ledger. The truth is, that many big state projects are often awe inspiring and people will therefore conclude that we should model the rest of our activity on that. When emergency planning methods were used to make war machines during WW2, socialists and others imagined that we should turn to such ‘rational’ methods in times of peace. How naive they now appear, but no more naive than those folk like Al Gore who claim that the State should take the credit for the internet, for example, as if such things as Google, YouTube or this blog would ever occur to a civil servant. In fact, just imagine how crap the internet would be if it was run by a state monopoly, like British Rail in the 1960s and 70s. UK rail privatisation is often held up as an example of the supposed limits of ‘free market fundamentalism’, but given the botched way in which railways were sold off, the constant interference with the railways in the early years of Labour, it is a nonsense to claim that only state monopolies can run rail networks. April 13th, 2007 | 27 comments - (Comments are closed)
Tyler Cowen notes an unsavoury fact about the Chinese economic miracle:
Cowen lifted the above quote from an interesting article that details how the regime in Beijing controls economic data coming out of the Middle Kingdom, which helps to prompt foreign investors to keep funding the great confidence trick that is the modern Chinese economy. The family connections of China’s super-rich and captains of industry must be considered alongside rosy economic statistics provided that expound China’s development. These filial links between the commanding heights of China’s supposedly private sector and its government betray the fact that China Inc. is the unholy alliance of a dictatorial regime and the application of corrupted ‘free’ market ideals. Such an arrangement will fail in due course, and will probably fail spectacularly since it has come this far. April 13th, 2007 | 21 comments - (Comments are closed)
Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky, who was granted asylum in the UK due to his treatment by the Russian state, had said he wants to engineer the overthrow of Vladimir Putin:
To which a Kremlin spokesman said:
Yet the Kremlin seems to think it can murder its political opponents in London and at home and that is just fine and dandy. Who says Russian politicians do not have a sense of humour, eh? What is sauce for the goose… April 13th, 2007 | 24 comments - (Comments are closed)
April 13th, 2007 | 57 comments - (Comments are closed)
Yesterday morning I caught myself committing two crimes simultaneously in a public place. I emerged from Westminster underground station beside the Houses of Parliament wearing a NO2ID button, which almost certainly constituted an unauthorised demonstration contrary to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2006. And, before proceeding southwards across the bridge to continue the same criminal conduct in Southwark and Lambeth on the way to where I was going, I took a leaflet from a young woman advertising a hairdresser, smiling and thanking her. If that is not ‘counselling and procuring an offence’ against the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005), given that Westminster City Council has taken the powers granted by the new Schedule 3A to prohibit the distribution of free literature, then I do not know what is. I am minded to get a haircut. Presumably that would make my payment the proceeds of crime, and the hairdressing business subject to sequestration under the 2002 Act. If things like this can happen on a sunny spring day under the eyes of the armed police and surveillance cameras protecting our diligent legislators, then no wonder the government is ‘cracking down on crime’ for the several-dozenth time in its Serious Crime Bill. If people can communicate and have social intercourse just as they like , without a license or the fear of prosecution, then there could be chaos. The PM is quite right, plainly. Society is being menaced by the liberal, laissez-faire, values of the ’60s. People showed respect for authority in the 1550s, before we went soft on witchcraft and heresy. April 13th, 2007 | 19 comments - (Comments are closed)
The government’s campaign to ban the rural practice of hunting foxes with hounds – motivated by a mix of sentimentality about animals, some genuine concern about cruelty and a lot of spite – has proven to be a waste of time, at least as far as I can judge from some news reports as well as direct personal experience. On the latter point, a foxhunt came across some open land that is owned by my father – what was left after he sold the bulk of the farm in Suffolk. The hunt did not ask my dad about coming across the land, and in fact caused a fair amount of damage to several hedges. My old man was, understandably, not very amused. It is sometimes assumed that farmers and other folk who work the land must be in favour of hunting vermin and therefore support foxhunting. I ‘support’ it in the sense that I tolerate it. I tend to regard foxhunting as a mildly silly activity but there are lots of silly activities which make up the eccentric land of ours. Just because one might not enjoy a certain pursuit in no way justifies banning it. On practical grounds, if one wants to control wild animals like foxes, a rifle is arguably better use than a bunch of dogs. Riding to hounds across open fields and over high hedges might at one stage have been good training for a budding cavalry soldier. And Let’s face it, foxhunters chase foxes because they enjoy it; they enjoy steaming across the countryside, with all the adrenalin rushes and cameraderie that this brings. And a man and woman look pretty damn good in those riding clothes. Even so, many farmers, such as tenant farmers, resent the hunt. When tenant farmers were more common than they are now, a landlord could ride across the tenant’s farm at will, and force said tenant to maintain the land in such a way as to keep up the supply of foxes, pheasants, partridges and other targets. Roger Scruton, in his ‘elegy’ to old England, defends the pattern of landholding in such terms (he denies the idea that one owns property in any absolute sense, but more as a sort of lease from the State). With the rise of owner-occupier farmers, however, it is not quite so simple for hunters to gallop across the land in pursuit of game come what may. The clash between foxhunters and farmers is rather ironic, given that some commenters tend to lump all country dwellers in the same mental category. Respect for property rights is in decline in this nation, and from all quarters. The assault on property rights, such as telling owners of pubs that their clients cannot smoke even if no-one is forcing anyone to frequent a place, is only one such example. The ability of people to change their property is constrained as never before by planning laws. Landowners are also affected. All the more reason, then, why devotees of the hunt should respect the rights of people who are, in usual circumstances, tolerant of the men who chase the fox to the cries of Tally Ho! April 12th, 2007 | 16 comments - (Comments are closed)
Depending on the deals, could we see personnel queuing up to be arrested by the Iranians so that they could subsequently sell their story? April 12th, 2007 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
Following the brilliant ‘straw man’ quote below, I thought I would list a few regular straw man arguments that I come across in the comment threads of this blog as well as in the wider media/public world where the ideas of liberty, defence policy or the free market are mentioned:
This is often posited as a fact, when in fact law and liberty are necessary for each other. Without laws defining property rights, for example, much peaceful intercourse is impossible.
This boils down to a form of argument by intimidation. Even though many opponents of the operation to overthrow Saddam are stupid, evil or possibly both, quite a lot were against it for prudential reasons.
Many people from all parts of the political spectrum thought overthrowing Saddam, who was a bloodthirsty tyrant, invader of neighbouring nations, sponsor of terror, user of WMDs, was a humanitarian and necessary act.
This is not a start of an argument, but an attempt to shout debate down. It betrays the fact that Greenery is becoming a religion with its own notions of heresy. If anyone plays this gambit, refuse to take it up.
I often see this argument made by bigots as well as more benign folk. In fact it is possible to believe that many human characteristics are inherited but also changeable. And just because we are influenced by genes, it does not mean were are driven in a deterministic way. Free will still exists. The more knowledge we have about human nature etc, the more power it gives individuals, not less.
All that is necessary is that human economic interaction is based on voluntary exchange, not force. How much people want to get rich or not is irrelevant.
In fact, a free society is often much more able to preserve certain traditions, not less so.
This is rubbish: liberals value communities so long as membership is voluntary and further, co-operation is a consequence of liberty, not its opposite. An individualist can enjoy group activities as much as anyone, such as being part of an organisation, club, football team, whatever. The key is that such membership is freely chosen. I am sure that other commenters can think of a few more… April 11th, 2007 | 57 comments - (Comments are closed)
This is just too damn funny not to draw people’s attention to: [Y]ou have raised so many straw men in that comment you are probably eligible for some sort of agricultural subsidy. – Commenter ‘Squawkbox’ April 11th, 2007 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
Animals have these advantages over man: they never hear the clock strike, they die without any idea of death, they have no theologians to instruct them, their last moments are not disturbed by unwelcome and unpleasant ceremonies, their funerals cost them nothing, and no one starts lawsuits over their wills. – Voltaire, without a doubt one of the greatest Frenchmen who have lived. His novel, Candide, with its great character Dr Pangloss, reads as fresh today as when it was written two centuries and a half ago. April 10th, 2007 | 33 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||